Camera Labs

Not unless you want to, you and you alone know what quality settings suit you best. I only mentioned the quality settings because, when you wrote about the 1.6K shots capacity, I assumed you might be using somehing below the maximum jpeg quality; but if you say you're using Large+Fine on your D7000 that means your SD card is huge, perhaps 128GB?

_________________
Nikon D90 | AF-S 18-200 VR II | AF-S 35mm f/1.8 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | SB-600 | Gorillapod + Manfrotto 484RC2

No I'm using two 16GB class 10 memory cards is that unusual and what do u mean by quality settings...?

It is not unusual, it is user preference.
RAW (NEF) or JPEG, and JPEG is subdivided in quality FINE, NORMAL, BASIC, and image sizes LARGE, MEDIUM, SMALL

_________________
- Wout -
Lowepro Nova 200 AW filled with Nikon D90 + MB-D80
18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX, SB-700

Did anyone catch this review of the D7k?

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipm ... eview.html

What was interesting to me was following bit:

That sure did NOT sound like the kind of experience we saw in CameraLabs live video review. Wonder what's going on here?[quote]

_________________
Some days are easy, like licking icing off a spoon... Today was more like stapling jello to a brick.

Did they say what kind of JPEGS they were shooting? They wouldn't get 100 frames at the Large Fine setting. Even Nikon admits to that in the manual.

I don't know what methodology they use for continuous shooting tests, but if they're pointing a camera at a relatively blank wall in the office when testing continuous shooting, even Large Fine JPEGS would be sufficiently small not to fill the buffer.

This is why it's important to state the settings AND test in real-life conditions.

IMO until manufactures settle upon a set of standardised tests all claims by producers have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Car manufacturers are getting closer with more standardised urban cycle fuel consumtion figures. I think it is unfair for a manufacture to say 5,6,10 FPS when some mean for just a few seconds before buffer slow down it is not a false hood as indeed they can do the claimed frame numbers in a single second but it intimates indefinate FPS.
It would be nice to have a standardised figure that not only says maximum FPS but also said how many frames you can shoot in eg raw before buffer slow down.
I am not a saturation photographer so FPS is not hugely vital for me, but for some users I could well imagine it would be a very important factor in their purchase decision

If you read the press release they often say for how many frames in total at what setting. And if it is for 2 seconds I think that should already cover 99,9% of the people out there. Who needs more is probably already looking to buy into the pro segment. People that still need more or longer, either have not studied their subject, or are not photographers that know their equipment.

_________________
- Wout -
Lowepro Nova 200 AW filled with Nikon D90 + MB-D80
18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX, SB-700

Thats interesting WoutK89 which press releases are these? as I would like to read them for comparison.
Thanks.

I am not going to read through old press releases, but they state in some of them fps >*< and on the bottom is the actual RAW performance for how many frames. And lucky us, there is always practice and reviews, you can go to a store to try it out if it suits you and in reviews they are glad to test the speed. You dont need to be first to own something.

_________________
- Wout -
Lowepro Nova 200 AW filled with Nikon D90 + MB-D80
18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX, SB-700

Agreed Gordon. That's why I found your comparison of the D7k to the 60D in the field so valuable. I was very disappointed when I watched the video to see AND hear just how quickly the buffer filled up and the fps ground to a near standstill.

Something not evident, depending on how one chooses to spin the numbers, but clear as a bell when shown in the review video shooting the jet boats.

_________________
Some days are easy, like licking icing off a spoon... Today was more like stapling jello to a brick.

Thanks Ingersoll, I really wanted to show how they compared in actual use.

PS - Lee, as Wout says, the total number of frames is often quoted on the press releases, but often as an asterisk referred to in small print at the end. Or sometimes in the specification sheet at the end. It's also often quoted in the manuals, and these are generally available to download in PDF format as soonas the camera is released.

FYI the info can be found on page 320 of the Nikon US manual and page 85 of the Canon US manual.

I must say I'm more than a bit disappointed by the D7k's performance in this realm. What's the point of higher fps if it's hobbled by such an anemic buffer? The D7k is a winner on so many other levels, but this may just be a deal breaker for me.

_________________
Some days are easy, like licking icing off a spoon... Today was more like stapling jello to a brick.

Does that answer your question? Remember, this is still a consumer camera and you already get a lot in this camera.

_________________
- Wout -
Lowepro Nova 200 AW filled with Nikon D90 + MB-D80
18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX, SB-700

The camera is pretty much perfect for my needs except for the buffer problem. Has / would a firmware update fix this?

if i understand right, the buffer is acts actually similar to RAM on computer, you write data to it so it can be processed and transferred to the memory card.

the speed of the transfer process is regulated by the processor, and size of buffer is determined by the number of flip-flop transistor units installed (1 pair of transistors = 1 bit ), so according to that the buffer size and speed should be mostly hardware problem, and no firmware update will change that.. (correct me if i'm wrong)

_________________
nikon d90 --->af-s dx 18-105mm; tamron 90mm macro

add me up on:

flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bakica/

deviant art:
http://tbensic.deviantart.com/

----:>bakice ce vladati svjetom<:----